Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivalua


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13(talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ivalua

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources on the page are among the best I found doing WP:BEFORE and does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Silicon Valley Business Journal is only source that is significant and could be considered reliable. This is even before the possible COI creation as shown on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the page -- Hi Barkeep49, I replaced a source on the Ivalua page to address your flag. The remaining sources have fairly significant readership and are third-party, neutral references. Please advise on any specific issues still remaining that necessitate this flag, or if the flag can now be taken down. Thanks, Jahub (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:SIGCOV. Article concerns a decently sized cloud computing company, but nothing indicates why Ivalua is distinct (implying to me it is run of the mill) or notable when compared to other cloud computing companies. Coverage is lacking, with most sources being press releases about the company's sales, funding, or routine company acquisitions. I agree with the nominator on the point that the Silicon Valley Business Journal is the only reliable source cited by the article, an I would expand by noting that the SVBJ article in question does not provide in-depth coverage of Ivalua and is rather concerned with announcing a new investment in the company. The article also contains quotes from Ivalua's CEO and data provided by the company, so it may not be entirely third party. This type of article was one of the reasons NCORP was recently strengthened. The other sources cited are also lackluster, with one being from a corporate-sponsored media site and another  being a wordpress site. In short, Ivalua is a company that exists but makes (and I my view has) no real claims to notability or significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.